As of this month — earlier this week, in fact — JFNA leadership submitted to its federation members another effort at (1) above without regard for (2). And, in this observer's opinion, you can't have one without the other. JFNA appears to believe that it has an entitlement to $30 million (+) in federation Dues as a matter of right; never defending the Dues "budget" in a manner that might convince federations that the Dues assessment has real validity.
The impact of this new Dues formula falls disproportionately on federations whose Dues assessment would dramatically increase:
Which of these federations -- all responsible communities -- can afford these increases (and, remember, these are the increases, not the base Dues on which they are built)? And, which can't...or won't? And, in a curious turn, the Memo supporting the new formulary clearly states that this work product is hardly ready for a vote -- an Implementation Committee will be created to, inter alia, examine "....[T]he specific approach to phasing-in the changes for Federations that would face a significant percentage increase..."
- Baltimore +40.8%
- Atlanta +16.1%
- Chicago +7.5%
- Cincinnati. +78.3%
- Cleveland +9.1%
- Omaha. +185.6%
- So. N.J. +80.8%
- Youngstown+106%
- K.C. +19.1%
- Akron. +57.8%
- St. Louis. +12.8%
Smaller communities than those listed which will be faced with smaller gross increases will have to evaluate which of their programs and who of their staffs will have to be cut to accommodate continuing membership. Meanwhile, New York-UJA will enjoy a $548,818 Dues reduction, and federations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Palm Beach, South Palm Beach, Boston, Washington, D.C. will see reductions as well.
But, to me, the threshold question must be: what is my/any community receiving as its return on this annual Dues "investment?" I'm anxious to hear JFNA leadership's answer. For too long the response was "trust us;" that really neither works any longer nor should it. Under the Wilf-Fingerhut Administration more is expected/demanded and I remain confident they will deliver.
I would love to learn how JFNA will use the Dues to fulfill our collective responsibilities; how communities will be allocated budgeted funds to aid them in, e.g., increasing their resources and donors.
I'm certain that my community, as it has always done, will step up to its responsibilities, as an expression of its commitment to the collective responsibilities reflected in JFNA, and because we have the financial capacity to do so.
Others?
Rwexler
Posts
2 comments:
You imply hope that federations will agree to pay to maintain this 30 Million Dollar budget.
I would suggest/hope that they do not.
Unfortunately, it has come to the point that only a dues rebellion will cause the needed downsizing of the current over budgeted and bloated organization.
The time has come for drastic downsizing and mission adjustment to fit today's reality, an unfortunate reality which we have caused to emerge over the last 20 wasted years by leaving them to do what they have done.
Anon 6:00 AM said it perfectly.
Especially with this iteration of a dues formula that was created with the initial $500,000 investment in Bridgespan.
One would think that a consulting company with Bridgespan's reputation would have included in their survey of the system, a question relating to the $30 million annual JFNA budget.
But alas, it appears that JFNA leadership wouldn't allow that question to be asked.
I agree with Anon 6:00 AM in that now is the time for the individual federations to voice their disapproval, not of the new formula, but of the bloated $30 million budget.
Imagine what every community would be able to do with an across the board 50% reduction in their dues as a result of a $15 million JFNA budget?
Then 25 Broadway could use whatever formula they wanted.
Post a Comment